DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-12 are rejected below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12-16-25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer (U.S. Pat. 4,719,586) in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0144795) in further view of Kume (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0243663) in view of Tiano (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0142154).
As to claims 1 and 12, Moyer teaches an operating a machine tool with the steps:
during a machining process in which a first workpiece of a first batch is machined by means of the machine tool (col. 3 lines 7-15): detecting at least one measured variable using a detection device of the machine tool (col. 7 lines 19-20 – length and pitch);
determining a measured value characterizing the machining process as a function of the measured variable using an electronic computing device ( col. 7 lines 19-36)measuring length); and
comparing the determined measured value with a reference function determined before the machining process a reference machining process carried out before the machining process using the machine tool and/or by of a further machine tool and stored in an electronic memory device the reference function characterizing the reference machining process to machine a second workpiece of a second batch (col. 8 lines 27-41, fig. 8 adjusting pitched based on the comparison of various thresholds in length per manufacturing run).
Moyer teaches most of the claimed invention, but fail to teach that the measured variable including an operating parameter of the machine tool. However, this is taught by Liu [0024, 0027, 0031].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Liu into the system and methods because Liu teaches the management systems and methods for machine tools can automatically provide suggested combinations of parameters to manage a machine tool via a network. Additionally, the generation of the suggested combinations of parameters can be dynamically adjusted according to the transaction data recorded during previous abnormalities which occurred in the machine tool, thus improving the achievement results of the repair/troubleshooting operations for the machine tool[0038].
Moyer in view of Liu teaches most of the claimed invention, but fail to teach and comparing the determined measured value with a reference function determined before the machining process using a reference machining process carried out before the machining process using the machine tool and/or a further machine tool and stored in an electronic memory device, the reference function characterizing the reference machining process as used to machine a workpiece of a reference batch; and adjusting the machine tool based on a result of the comparison to machine a second workpiece of the first batch. However, this is taught by Kume [0060 - As described above, the use of the processing inspection workpiece 10 having the known reference surfaces to measure and compare the reference surfaces having known accuracies (known measured coordinate values) and a processing surface of an inspection target with each other enables not only on-machine measurement of a machine tool but also accurate on-machine measurement. As a result, an inspection of a working accuracy of the machine tool is possible without a coordinate measuring machine. Further, based on the working accuracy inspection, the measurement result may be feedbacked to the machine tool to correct the processing position of the machine tool or adjust the accuracy.]
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Kume into the system and methods of Moyer in view of Liu the motivation to combine is that Kume teaches that using feedback of a reference batch can allow the machine tool to correct the processing position of the machine tool or adjust the accuracy going forward [0060].
Moyer in view of Liu and Kume teaches most of the claimed invention, but fail to teach all of the invention, however, this is an obvious variation as taught by Tiano. As to claim 1 and 12, Tiano teaches that the measured variable can be a determined by an internal detection device such as energy consumption, tool wear, fault cause, [0135, 0140, 0465] using this data with regards to the machine and workpiece data (such as in Moyer) is used to determine machine production performance and comparing that to known best procedures (reference data) and then optimization recommendation for the machine based on the measured performance/data[0323]. Since the system is designed to optimize the machining process it stands to reason that these recommendation would be implemented right away for the next machining.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teaching of Tiano into the system and methods of Moyer modified by Liu and Kume. The motivation to combine is that Tiano teaches using both machining properties and workpiece information increase production can occur via recommendations [0159-0160].
As to claim 2, Moyer teaches further comprising setting a parameter, influencing machining processes to be carried out by the machine tool, as a function of the comparison col. 8 lines 27-41, fig. 8 adjusting pitched based on the comparison of various thresholds in length.
As to claim 3, Moyer teaches further comparing the determined measured value with a second reference function determined before the machining process on the basis of a second reference machining process carried out the machine tool and/or by a further machine tool before the machining process and stored in the electronic memory device wherein the second reference function characterizes the second reference machining process carried out to machine a third workpiece of a third batch (fig. 9 shows using multiple threshold lengths while claims 8 shows the constantly updating loop) .
As to claim 4, Moyer teaches wherein the comparison comprises that a combining of the reference functions using the electronic computing device and determining an actual function comprising the measured value and characterizing the machining process is determined (fig. 8 and 9 – multiple thresholds that can be consider each a reference function).
As to claim 6, Moyer teaches further a first value of a first parameter, influencing machining processes to be carried out by the machine tool using the electronic computing device so a second parameter of a second parameters fulfils a predefined criterion (adjusting the pitch in a machining operation to get a proper length – fig. 8).
As to claim 7, Moyer teaches automatically setting the first value of the first parameter using electronic computing device (fig. 8 adjusting machining step).
As to claim 8, Moyer teaches further comprising setting the first value of the first parameter a function a detected input brought about by a person (Col. 11 lines 7-10).
As to claim 9, Moyer teaches further comprising setting the criterion a function of a detected input brought about by a person and is thereby predefined (col. 13 lines 4-25).
As to claim 10, Moyer teaches wherein before the machining process, carrying out the reference machining process, wherein the second workpiece is machined by the machine tool (col. 19-36); detecting during the reference machining process the measured variable using the detection device of the machine tool, determining a reference measured value characterizing the reference machining process using the electronic computing device as a function of the measured variable detected during the reference machining process, and determining the reference function is determined as a function of the reference measured value (fig 8, teaches the loop of the system constantly updating based on the current machine run).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer (U.S. Pat. 4,719,586) in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0144795) in further view of Kume (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0243663) in view of Tiano (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0142154) in view of Kobayashi (U.S. Pat. 6,234,869).
Moyer, Kume, Taino and Liu teach most of the claim invention, but do not teach claim 5, however, this is an obvious variation and is taught by Kobayashi as follows:
As to claim 5, Kobayashi teaches wherein at least part of the actual function is visualized displayed on an electronic display (fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date to include the teachings of Kobayashi into the system and methods of Moyer in view of Liu and Kume. The motivation to combine is that Kobayashi teaches it is possible to know that there is an abrupt change or no change in the size of the workpiece during processing only by looking at the graph (col.1 lines 52-59).
Examiner also notes this seems to be extra-solution activity.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer (U.S. Pat. 4,719,586) in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0144795) in further view of Kume (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0243663) in view of Tiano (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0142154) in view of Douglas (U.S. PG Pub. 2017/0038190)
Moyer in view of Kume, Tiano and Liu teaches most of the claim invention, but does not teach claim 11, however, this is an obvious variation and is taught by Douglas as follows:
As to claim 11, Douglas teaches wherein the reference function and/or the actual function and/or the measured value and/or the reference measured value and/or the first value of the first parameter is provided and loaded into a data cloud external to the machine tool [0043].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filing date to modify Moyer in view of Lui and Kume with Douglas since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). The predictable result would be the measurements as taken in Moyer being sent to a cloud based system as done in Douglas for viewing outside the machine tool location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the remarks, filed 11-20-25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tiano.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119